Page 7 of 18 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 360

Thread: Using drones: principles, tactics and results (amended title)

  1. #121
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Rich People Buying Predator Drones

    Interesting link about Rich people being so scared of a revolt they are now buying military style drones for surveillance, so far they have not been armed.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0QVj...&feature=feedu

  2. #122
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Let me share a thought about the targeted killing stuff - drone or not. And this includes permanent arrest of 'leaders':

    Isn't it quite the same as throwing the dice (with dozens of dice at once) again and again?


    Shouldn't we know which dice numbers we want to have, in order to have some desired outcome?

    Throwing the dice again and again sounds like a suppression of a problem, or like delaying a conclusion, to me.

    After all, we know(!?) that taking out leaders of extremists leads more often to a more extreme and more courageous successor than not.


    I mean - do we wait till a local leader replacement turns out to be ineffective or at most mildly problematic and then end the targeted killing in that region or do we go after him as well, simply because he's 'leadership'?


    How could we know enough about the person if we cannot hit him better than with an unmanned drone flying thousands of metres high?

    What's about the old multiple rings/levels of guerilla organisations thing again? Don't the Taliban resemble a mobile forces - local forces - local support base structure in which taking out leaders means little?

  3. #123
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Interesting twist - the drone as a round of munitions (like a LAW).

    The backpack-size "Switchblade" drone and its launch tube give individual soldiers a new level of precise control over an explosive weapon. Rather than calling in supporting artillery fire or airstrikes, soldiers can simply launch the Switchblade from out of sight, confirm a target on a live video feed from the drone, and then command the robotic device to arm itself and fly into the target at high speed.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44412133.../#.Tmt-qnODo39
    A scrimmage in a Border Station
    A canter down some dark defile
    Two thousand pounds of education
    Drops to a ten-rupee jezail


    http://i.imgur.com/IPT1uLH.jpg

  4. #124
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    It may need a less elaborate launch apparatus, but it's pretty much the same as the fibre-optic guided mode of some Spike versions (Israeli ATGM) or ATGMs in general. An employment without at least initial line of sight is rather unlikely.
    Cheap seekers don't suit themselves well to lock-on-after-launch as standard procedure.

  5. #125
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Let me share a thought about the targeted killing stuff - drone or not. And this includes permanent arrest of 'leaders':

    Isn't it quite the same as throwing the dice (with dozens of dice at once) again and again?


    Shouldn't we know which dice numbers we want to have, in order to have some desired outcome?

    Throwing the dice again and again sounds like a suppression of a problem, or like delaying a conclusion, to me.

    After all, we know(!?) that taking out leaders of extremists leads more often to a more extreme and more courageous successor than not.


    I mean - do we wait till a local leader replacement turns out to be ineffective or at most mildly problematic and then end the targeted killing in that region or do we go after him as well, simply because he's 'leadership'?


    How could we know enough about the person if we cannot hit him better than with an unmanned drone flying thousands of metres high?

    What's about the old multiple rings/levels of guerilla organisations thing again? Don't the Taliban resemble a mobile forces - local forces - local support base structure in which taking out leaders means little?
    A good analogy from real life is the efficient developement of bacteria strains with multiple resistances against anti-biotics.

    The application of anti-biotics over a too short period of time, without sufficient concentration and without correct target identification lead to the so called "super-bugs", i.e. the surviving bacteria are a more formidable opponent than the ones we tried to kill.

  6. #126
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Let me share a thought about the targeted killing stuff - drone or not. And this includes permanent arrest of 'leaders':

    Isn't it quite the same as throwing the dice (with dozens of dice at once) again and again?

    Fuchs, I think you are talking about Wilf's article and in his case he was talking about a specific situation where it was used(with great effect) to achieve that particular Policy Objective. When I use the term targeted killing I mean killing those people and only those people that will lead you to your final Objective, that may be 1 or it may be 100,000.

  7. #127
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Fuchs, I think you are talking about Wilf's article and in his case he was talking about a specific situation where it was used(with great effect) to achieve that particular Policy Objective. When I use the term targeted killing I mean killing those people and only those people that will lead you to your final Objective, that may be 1 or it may be 100,000.
    Does it? What final objective?

    I figure it's extremely rare that one or few persons are important enough that taking them out of the situation is a major and lasting improvement. There are usually effective replacements. I guess even Castro could have been replaced in '59 by someone else, for example.
    Look at the infamous "AQ #3" thing, for example. It looks as if that's an endless line of martyrdom aspirants who are ready to move up into this position.

    In the end, assassinations can become detrimental rather than advantageous - by virtue of millions of side-effects.


    Look at AQ, for example. Final objective? Discourage AQ terrorism. Whom to kill for this objective? I figure this would first require to kill the motivators (the ideology preachers), then the terror organisers that are still acti8ve after ideology has run dry.
    Feasibility? Near zero. Resemblance to actual campaign? 50% - the non-crucial 50%.

    Look at the TB example. Final objective? TB shall subjugate to the rule of (central government's) law in AFG or stay out.
    Whom to kill? All TB who oppose central government rule in AFG. Feasibility? Hopeless. Resemblance to actual assassination/grabbing campaign? 50%. The other half of the campaign happens to kill TB who at the time actually stayed out of AFG.


    This assassination campaigning is to me an outgrowth of the non-Clausewitzian "center of gravity" version and the EBO thinking.

    The U.S. is somehow obsessed with the military version of the G-Spot; fumbling and fumbling and fumbling, all the time pretending that it's trying to score at the one spot where fumbling leads to something huge.
    Meanwhile, it's debatable whether such a spot exists at all.

  8. #128
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default Excellent point...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    In the end, assassinations can become detrimental rather than advantageous - by virtue of millions of side-effects.
    Assassination is fraught with repercussions. Even more so when the assassin uses a missile that often kills others in proximity. While assassinations may be useful, if very, very carefully targeted, there are too many unknowns to warrant them on a grand scale. They also should be carried out with the precision of a rifle, not through explosives. That is where drones would be most effective, in tracking the target.

    Targeting leadership can throw an organization off balance temporarily, but that is only advantageous to the assassin if boots are on the ground to take advantage of the confusion. To believe that assassinations will dissuade others from occupying leadership positions out of fear of being killed themselves ignores much of history.

    Fuchs also makes a great point vis-a-vis AQ. As he notes, AQ is more idea than organization so it matters little who is in charge at HQAQ, as long as the idea stays alive, and one cannot kill ideology with Predators. Also, death is only a deterrent to those who want to live.

    Taking out Castro in '59? Intriguing. Would Raul have been strong enough to step in? Or would leadership have fallen to Camilo Cienfuegos or Juan Almeida? Would the M-26-7 have accepted Che as its leader?

    I’m pretty sure taking Castro out would not have allowed Batista to regain power, once he left Cuba he lost it, but the repercussions of Castro’s death are intriguing. Maybe no “Bay of Pigs” or “Cuban Missile Crises”? Maybe I could buy Cuban cigars without having to go to Canada. Hopefully that silliness ends soon.

    I think a bigger impact to the revolution would have been in ’56, if he had been killed shortly after the landing at Playa Las Coloradas. Fidel was the soul of M-26-7 and it was very small then, the survivors may not have been able to rally. I think even then there probably still would have been a revolution, but later, early ‘60s perhaps.
    "What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."

  9. #129
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Does it? What final objective?
    1-It does matter, but like I have said before this is America we don't do Objectives, we don't do planning because that is the equivalent to Communism and that ain't allowed. So we do the Invisible Hand. That means if you offend our sense of what is right and wrong.......we will come beat you up. which is why we always end up in such a big mess.......that's it, we use the big mess theory of everything.

    2-I believe we made a serious mistake by not pursuing EBO although I understand why they stopped and I even agree with why they stopped it but it should have been fixed instead of abandoned. I am probably the only one here that believes that.

    3-The article on Targeting theory over at that journal is about the only way out IMO. But even that will not work unless you understand the Political Motive for the war.
    Last edited by slapout9; 09-13-2011 at 06:31 PM. Reason: stuff

  10. #130
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    When I use the term targeted killing I mean killing those people and only those people that will lead you to your final Objective, that may be 1 or it may be 100,000.
    I do not buy that. Let us assume that some kind of enemy emerges who wants to destroy democracy. Let us also assume this enemy is smart enough to understand EBO. Let us even assume that somehow this enemy is capable of achieving air superiority allowing him to strike from the air at will.

    Can somebody tell me who this enemy has to kill to achieve his final Objective (with capital O) of destroying democracy? Whoever answers this question may list between 1 and a 100,000 people.

  11. #131
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    I do not buy that. Let us assume that some kind of enemy emerges who wants to destroy democracy. Let us also assume this enemy is smart enough to understand EBO. Let us even assume that somehow this enemy is capable of achieving air superiority allowing him to strike from the air at will.

    Can somebody tell me who this enemy has to kill to achieve his final Objective (with capital O) of destroying democracy? Whoever answers this question may list between 1 and a 100,000 people.
    Er, I don't think slapout suggested that any objective could be achieved by killing 100,000 people or less. In this case, though, I'm pretty sure any 100,000 American civilians, killed in groups of 50 or more by a single enemy over a period of a few years, would be enough to effectively destroy democracy. Hell, even 10k might be enough.

  12. #132
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Can somebody tell me who this enemy has to kill to achieve his final Objective (with capital O) of destroying democracy? Whoever answers this question may list between 1 and a 100,000 people.
    Yes I can tell you, anybody that supports Democracy, which in this case your targeted killing will probably be in the millions. The point is to kill the enemy and only the enemy that is what makes it targeted. I chose 1 to 100,000 just to show that the number does not have to be a small number(targeted killing for some reason has always been associated with small numbers) but can in fact be very large.

  13. #133
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    in this case your targeted killing will probably be in the millions.
    In that case, I do not have any other comment than that I do not share your opinions.

  14. #134
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    273

    Default

    Er, you don't think killing everyone who holds a certain belief will eradicate that belief? Who exactly is going to be around to hold that belief after everyone who holds it is killed...?

  15. #135
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Now leave the 66th sub-level of human morale and get back to Western civilization, please.

    We don't practice killing everybody who has a certain belief.
    In fact, we kill NOBODY for his or her beliefs.

    Even in case that a belief is extremely harmful, we tolerate it.

    In case that there is an aggressive intent coupled with capability of fulfilling it,
    we can face the threat with rule of law or on the battlefield -
    depending on how it suits the purpose better.


    Repeat, to be absolutely clear:
    To even think of 'killing everybody with a certain belief' is waaaaayyyy out of bounds.
    That attitude is worthy only of the biggest evil assholes of history. PERIOD.

  16. #136
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default How To Do ?

    1. How do you determine "everyone" who holds a certain belief ? A data mining operation ? - "1984" ?

    2. How do you strike all those "everyones" without unacceptable collateral damage ? - death ray ?

    Perhaps, THE MULE from Asimov's Foundation ?

    Regards

    Mike

  17. #137
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    1. How do you determine "everyone" who holds a certain belief ? A data mining operation ? - "1984" ?

    2. How do you strike all those "everyones" without unacceptable collateral damage ? - death ray ?

    Perhaps, THE MULE from Asimov's Foundation ?

    Regards

    Mike
    Hitler had a pretty extensive system to do it. In a Democracy(which implies voting)voter registration records,maybe.

  18. #138
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,349

    Default Thread suspended

    Moderator's Note

    I am not convinced this discussion is on track and mass killing is far from what SWC is about. As indicated by Fuch's comment.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 09-16-2011 at 11:28 AM. Reason: Error
    davidbfpo

  19. #139
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,349

    Default Thread unlocked

    Update

    The consensus amongst the moderators is that the discussion is within SWC rules and the thread is now unlocked.
    davidbfpo

  20. #140
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    11,074

    Default Addicted to Drones

    Addicted to Drones

    Entry Excerpt:



    --------
    Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
    This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

Similar Threads

  1. War is War is Clausewitz
    By Michael C in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 421
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 12:41 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •